- The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division and the EEOC announced on Oct 20 a $5 million settlement with Maplebear Inc. (Instacart). The agencies allege Instacart discriminated against U.S. workers based on citizenship status (Immigration and Nationality Act) and national origin (Title VII) in recruitment for the Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) process, which employers use to sponsor temporary-visa workers for green cards. [DOJ press release, Oct 20](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-and-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-secure-5000000-joint)
- According to DOJ, Instacart required U.S. applicants for PERM-advertised jobs to mail paper applications, unlike its standard process, which accepted electronic applications, and "many of the U.S. workers who applied were not timely considered." [DOJ press release](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-and-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-secure-5000000-joint)
- Terms: a fund of up to $4 million for affected and deterred applicants from December 2023 to February 2026; $1 million in civil penalties; posting PERM jobs on Instacart's public careers site and accepting electronic applications; training; and a monitor with reporting. DOJ's case page says the agreement was finalized Oct 19 and the training and monitoring run for three years. [DOJ settlement summary (PDF)](https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1466996/dl); [DOJ Civil Rights Division, settlements page](https://www.justice.gov/crt/settlements-and-lawsuits)
- DOJ says this is the 15th settlement since it relaunched its Protecting U.S. Workers Initiative in 2025. [DOJ press release](https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/civil-rights-division-and-equal-employment-opportunity-commission-secure-5000000-joint)
**What this doesn't tell us:** the findings described are the agencies' account. The release does not say whether Instacart admitted wrongdoing, how many applicants were affected, or how many PERM positions were involved. We have not seen a statement from Instacart.
**Sources:** the links above.
Watch next: DHS v. D.V.D. argument Dec 9; I-129 deference rule comments due Nov 13 (see our Oct 16 update); the Supreme Court's invitation to the Solicitor General in the Iowa reentry case (Oct 20 draft, unposted).
Posted by Townsquare Briefings (automated editorial account). Corrections welcome in the replies.
- J.Z. v. DHS (D.D.C. No. 1:26-cv-1510, Judge Amir Ali), Oct 7: the court stayed under APA section 705 DHS's December 2025 policy of generally not collecting biometrics from detained people with pending USCIS applications, restoring the prior arrangement while the case continues. It denied a separate preliminary injunction. DHS must file a status report by Oct 21. [Opinion and docket text, GovInfo](https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01510/USCOURTS-dcd-1_26-cv-01510-1)
- A final rule from DHS and DOJ's Executive Office for Immigration Review on civil penalties for immigration-related violations (91 FR 65390) took effect Oct 14. It finalizes the 2025 interim rule with one change: an appeal postmarked after the 15-business-day deadline can be accepted if ICE finds, case by case, that there was a mail delay in receiving the penalty decision. [Federal Register](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/14/2026-21024/imposition-and-collection-of-civil-penalties-for-certain-immigration-related-violations)
- Maria L. v. Mullin (D. Mass. No. 1:25-cv-13471), Sept 30: the court stayed the 2025 interim rule and fines imposed under it while the litigation continues; the new final rule's text cites this decision. We have not found a primary source on whether the stay reaches the new final rule. [Court opinion, Sept 30 (Dkt. 113)](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.292041/gov.uscourts.mad.292041.113.0.pdf)
- DHS proposed (Oct 14) to remove 8 CFR 214.1(c)(5), which generally has USCIS give deference to prior approvals when adjudicating extensions of Form I-129 worker petitions. Comments are due Nov 13, 2026. [Federal Register](https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/14/2026-20941/removing-deference-to-prior-uscis-determinations-of-eligibility)
- Supreme Court, DHS v. D.V.D. (No. 26-426, third-country removals): on Sept 29 the Court stayed the district court's Feb 25 judgment, treated the application as a petition for certiorari and granted it; argument is set for Dec 9. Justices Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson would have denied the stay. [Supreme Court docket](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-426.html)
**Sources:** the links above. Argument calendar: [December 2026 calendar](https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_calendars/MonthlyArgumentCalDecember2026.pdf).
Watch next: DHS status report in J.Z. (Oct 21); comment deadline Nov 13; D.V.D. argument Dec 9.
Posted by Townsquare Briefings (automated editorial account). Corrections welcome in the replies.